About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 12
CNNW 2
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBC 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
it out. if republicans end up getting it, it's something the obama administration told john boehner they were willing to trade away if republicans end up getting it, that will feel like a big win for them. enough to unlock the tax deal. i'm not saying the final negotiation here will be easy. one thing that's a tough sticking point in negotiations. we began tonight which the white house wants to get rid of forever. there's not been a lot of republican movement on the forever deal. i'm not saying the final negotiation here will be easy. one thing that's a tough sticking point in negotiations. we began tonight which the white house wants to get rid of forever. there's not been a lot of republican movement on the forever deal. i'm not saying they are not going to get to a deal before the deadline, but don't be fooled by the posturing. there is a sailboat. it's coming clearer. joining us is the former budget director for the obama administration. vice chairman at citigroup, a veteran of these negotiations, thank you for being here on a friday night. >> good to be with you. >> peter, you
as well. so the obama administration is so far out there, that what the republicans are doing is pointing out how reasonable they are, taking bowles' idea, i see he's playing democrat partisan today -- >> part of that is actually putting revenue on the table which speaker boehner has said multiple times he's open to doing, that includes closing loopholes and ending deductions. not words that are political kryptoni kryptonite. for the republican party that has stoked the eyre on the ends of the spectrum including erick erickson they said this the gop selling out. do you agree with that or not? >> not at this point. we were in this point two years ago when the same things were discussed with obama during the debt ceiling increase and at the end of the day, we ended up with $2.5 trillion in spending savings and not a dollar of tax increase. why? because obama overplayed his hand. he's doing it again. just as he did in 2008. he thought the country had given him a blank sheet of paper to work on. he did the stimulus spending. he went from 70% support down to below 50% and lost the house. now h
, so a pretty clean case here, an even the obama administration has already said it doesn't think the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act can withstand a legal attack. >>> the second case the court decided to take on is proposition 8, the california ballot initiative adding a state constitutional amendment in 2008 that said only marriage between a man or woman is valid or recognized in california. it overturned a court ruling that said same-sex couples have a right to marry. the cases are likely to be heard in march and decided some time in june. randi? >> joe johns, thank you very much for that. we'll be right back. >>> some are calling it the next "roe v. wade" or brown versus board of education. the issue the u.s. supreme court agreed to take on that will make history. >>> all of those who argued for non-intervention because of the things that might happen have now happened because we failed to intervene. >> when is enough enough? that is the question many are asking about syria as the death toll climbs and concerns mount over chemical weapons. now some lawmakers a
marijuana law, the obama administration is considering ways to crack down on the reforms. top officials are looking at how to use the federal government to reverse the impact of the new laws, according to a report in "the new york times." now the options include denying federal grants to states that legalize pot, aggressively prosecuting pot users in those two states under the federal laws, or most controversially, just taking these states to court. then the administration could get a formal ruling that the federal laws against pot just cancel out these new state laws. all those proposals are premised on fighting against the new politics and spirit that has been take hold in these states. but the obama administration could also embrace this as a moment to rethink the entire drug war. it could ask congress to at least lower marijuana's current classification as a schedule 1 substance. that is the anachronistic and grave category for drugs like heroin, which have no prospect of safe or medical use. or look, the administration could do for pot what it did for children of undocumented worke
president obama this is the administration i think that has significantly led from behind. it's outsourced its own u.s. leadership on the world stage countries like france and turkey. this is not an administration that is interested in powerfully projecting american leadership internationally. we now see, of course, the middle east going up in flames. and there is absolutely no leadership whatsoever coming from washington at this time. i describe the obama president's foreign policy as an absolute disaster. one that has significantly undercut key u.s. allies, including of course israel and great britain while appeasing america's enemies on the world stage. from iran, for example through to sudan to north korea and now, of course, we see the situation in egypt significantly deteriorating. and barely a word of condemnation coming from the obama administration with regard to morsi's dictatorship in cairo. >> obviously retreating on freedoms without a doubt, clamping down on personal liberty, religious liberty. that's a big concern with morsi. and human rights activists around the world are ve
. unemployment hit rock bottom near the beginning of the -- under the bush administration. you can see this right here. and this of course the changing the color here is when president obama took over in january of '09. who is responsible for this turnaround? >> absolutely the president. and it would be a better turnaround if the republicans had allowed a bigger stimulus. we'd have many more jobs. >> you'd make the case we didn't spend enough on the economy? >> not only did we not spend enough, but we wasted 40% of it on tax cuts for small business, which is inherently savings and not stimulus. it was a real policy mistake. >> so considering where we are, and now 33 months of private sector job growth, is this historic? >> it's certainly we're going in the right direction, ed. we're not creating as many jobs as we need for the population growth, but it's astonishing we're recovering the way we are and if the republicans would stop creating the uncertainty, remember the uncertainty by not making a deal, we'd see the numbers improving very dramatically. >> well, let me ask you in terms of the stabi
the unemployment rate under president obama's administration. which of the president's policies have helped the most in this? >>. well very crucial to this has been his decision to get congress to extend unemployment benefits surprisingly. because when people have the money are spending it back in the economy. every 50th person you meet statistically only has food stamps today as income. and that's the result of these years of the republicans policies. so having unemployment and extendsing benefits next year would be important to bring the number down and having businesses hire more people because they have customer with money. >> if congress failed to pass the recovery act, the center on budget and policy priorities says we have added almost 1 million more jobs because of the stimulus package. why are the republicans fighting stimulus spending now? why? is it they don't want to see president obama succeed or do they believe spending more money is not the right thing to do? >> i think both of those are true. they do not want him to succeed. there's no question about that. they are certain s
for secretary clinton and the director of the security counsel. what is the obama administration's red line on the chemical weapons? >> i think the president announced it last september and he repeated it last week. the secretary of state has done so as well. if check cal weapons are used, this becomes a red line and becomes something as the president said a few months ago, changes his cal cue louse. i think we have been out there very clearly saying that use chemical weapons and everything is going to change in terms of the possibility of american intervention. >> we have been talking about those words. what is the u.s. willing to do? are we specifically talking act boots on the ground? >> i suspect we are not talking boots on the ground. there are probably ways to get at this without that, probably from the air. i think we are probably also coordinating closely with turkey, jordan and israel because all of those countries have a profound concern, if in fact, chemical weapons are used or control is lost. >> when we talk about the chemical weapon, there's an article that says they are skept
morsi under a microscope, has been for some time. in the washington post say, the obama administration has been morsi's main enabler. what with role should this country play in egypt? >> look, i think we're going to have to walk a very fine line. on one hand, we could cut aid and condition assistance on democratic behavior, but then again, we're going lose whatever influence we have. i mean, i would argue the following. number one, our assistance to the egyptian military needs to continue, otherwise you might just as well hang a closed for the season sign on american influence in the country. at the same time, i do believe we should begin to start conditioning american economic systems on morsi's democratic behavior and performance. number three, we really ought to start speaking out and up much more loudly than we have in the past. morsi was due to come here this month. he's not coming. it's just as well. if, in fact, he comes in january, i'm not even persuaded that visit shouldn't be held or conditioned on the reality of trends within egyptian society on morsi's part that are much mo
, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one. there are several different cases raising that issue that the justices are probably going to decide whether to hear today. >> california's prop 8, what would that entail? >> propositional is a very different case because that's really a more fundamental case that potentially could apply in every state of the union. basically that question is does the constitution require that everyone, gay or straight, has the right to get married, and what makes the proposition 8 case potentially so earth-shaking in its politics is that it might not apply only in california. it might apply in the 40 plus states that don't have same-sex marriage. it could essentially bring same-sex marriage to the whole country. that's a very different, much broader issue than the defense of marriage act. >> and, jeffrey, explain to us, what is the difference if you are a gay coupl
get. after first supporting the defense of marriage act, the obama administration concluded last year that it violates the constitution. >> we cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same sex companies. >> reporter: house republicans are now taking up the law's legal defense. supporters say it helps preserve traditional marriage. >> unions of two men and two women are not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children. >> reporter: the fact that the court has agreed to take up both cases, including the battle over proposition 8 from california, could mean that the justices are prepared to get to the constitutional heart of the same-sex marriage issue. that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> thanks for that. >>> back to you, molly. you were doing a big piece of this for "the atlantic" for next week. what did you find most interesting i
that ability to honor his add certificate sear. i think this is a test for the president and the administration on how they handle it. that john bayne kerr come out of it not a diminished figure. but he's holding all the cards right now, barack obama. >> woodruff: you see the president having as many cards as mark? >> i think the president clearly has the upper hand. i think if we do go off the cliff and recession, i think the fiscal cliff is completely unpredic unpredict-- predictable, especially with a fragile economy, the wall street and the corporate economists are deeply scared about it. that recession really would, you know, wreck his term because we would be obsessed with that for the next couple of years. and so i don't think it's a total walk for him but he clearly has the upper hand. and then there is just the sheer fact of the numbers. say they reach a compromise. i think the republicans are likely to cave on the rate and you close a few deductions. >> do you think they will. >> i do. >> because they are saying they are not going to cave. >> there is going to be no deal on that. they
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)